Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 08:22:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

No current nominations

Yes, there are no current nominations. This has happened before. Those threads would be worth a read before another discussion on the deeper meaning, whether we don't have enough admins, how to find more, etc. etc.--chaser (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, you spoilt the fun. I had a stopwatch ready to see how long it will take for such a thread to come into existence... ;-) Regards SoWhy 07:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, everything is perfectly fine in Wikiland. Why change what is self-evidently not broken. Right? --78.34.233.179 (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't propose WP:RFA for deletion yet. Anyway there have been several nominations in the last 24 hours. But there was so little time open to vote that we must have missed them. You may wish to contact the candidates on their talk pages and give helpful suggestions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Arguing for reform equals proposing it for deletion. Exact same thing. I sure am glad we have the naysayers sceptics to prevent any bold, but reversible reckless and irreversible actions. --78.34.233.179 (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Graeme was obviously not being serious. I also fail to see where you argued for reform. Perhaps it got obscured by unwarranted sarcasm and pointless clever remarks.--Atlan (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, given the American holiday, maybe we should go with one of two extremes for the rest of the weekend: Automatically nominating people when they are autoconfirmed, or locking WP:RFA so nothing can be transcluded. *joke*. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I love how often I can quote "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again" and it still be a valid statement. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No nominations in about three days. Time to mark RfA as {{historical}}? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that we've not had to mark this talk page as {{hysterical}} by now. Shereth 17:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You could always look back at your time and Wikipedia and find someone you've had outstanding interactions with and nominate them. =) Mkdw^talk 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it time to bring out the trump card (me) yet? If so, can people send me the best answers to all the questions? Thanks in advance.--Atlan (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The answer to every question is "Support me before Wikipedia explodes." Shereth 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the only question that countliar's question: "Do you promise not to break the wiki?" davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You guys are looking at if from the wrong angle... think of it this way, it's been three days since anybody was attacked for not crossing enough t's or dotting enough i's.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That starts tonight, actually. iMatthew ^talk at 00:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an unusually long dry spell... 122.162.176.142 (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I asked five users who I feel are well-qualified if they want a nomination. Expect five RFAs if they all accept. Secret ^account 14:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Looking on the bright side, November was a solid month at RfA. There were 13 successful RfAs (the most since April) and just 5 unsuccessful RfAs (the fewest all year), discounting the six WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW closures. All that, plus a successful RfB! After that kind of month, an absence of current nominations isn't a big deal. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Heh... I would run, but I would most likely fail considering that I have done almost nothing to change since my last RfA, besides getting a bit more involved in various discussions, particularly here and at AN/ANI. Plus it would be rather soon since my rename, which happened to break the Wiki and cause over 20,000 of my edits to not re-attribute to my new username, while my still saying in my preferences that I still have over 98,000 edits. The thing that should not be 16:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Only the worst sufferers of editcountitis would be concerned about that edit count. Anyway, I threw my hat into ring and was about to answer all questions with "Support me before Wikipedia explodes", per Shereth's advice. But with Secret getting busy, I guess I'll take my hat back and wait before clicking "save page".--Atlan (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

God forbid someone would want their contribution history under a single banner. @Thing, you can bother User:Werdna to manually re-attribute them. –xeno^talk 16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be delirious to support the thing that should not be. Admin is a role that should be taken seriously. If that ever comes up at RfA i would be curious of the results. Which make me think of previous RfAs. Filed by a banned user and then deleted is the best that we have so far this month. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 16:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I approached some of the people who demurred when I last approached them; they all are still remaining sane :( -- Avi (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there's an Eco/PT sock out there somewhere who is getting pretty close to being properly groomed for an RfA. Tan | 39 16:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there is, and he has probably already appeared at a few recent RFAs. It's only been a few months since that whole thing, so I'll start worrying in a few more since only an idiot would run this soon after being blocked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Two denied, but got one to accept so far. Secret ^account 18:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yippee, no more drama! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The presence of active RFA's means no more drama?--Atlan (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more like "better the devil drama we know". Shereth 19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, whoops. I meant to indicate that people won't be freaking out here. If the power of an RFA could ever completely end drama, the world here would be a different place. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I got three more RFAs that I'm creating today or tommorrow, with another one still waiting for a reply. No more lack of RFA. Thanks Secret ^account 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need more admins?

If the number of active editors here is static, the total "number of editors" (however defined) is declining, the policies and processes are clearer and the tools are better, then why does Wikipedia need more admins? I'm not trying to be provocative or disruptive about this, I just think the hustings/elections would be more effective if we had some objective data about the need. Have we detected more sockpuppets? Is there more vandalism? Do the best writers need more policing? Will more admins make the encyclopedia a better place? It doesn't seem that promotion to admin is needed to entice editors to stay here, otherwise there would be no shortage of self-nominations. Am I missing the point or are we lacking some fundamental statistics about editing patterns? - Pointillist (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The number of hours spent administrating in relation to the total number of edits per day should be about constant. If we are losing active admins faster than we are losing active editors, then we need more active admins, assuming the average time spent admining and average number of edits per day per editor is nearly constant. Based on some previous discussions, we are losing active admins. On the other hand, some of the admin backlogs are a lot lower than they were a year or two ago. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the way I see it. too, except that I'd expect the daily ratio of admin-hours to edit-count should fall over time because of greater maturity within the system (backlogs being lower might be evidence of this). I don't reject the possibility we need new admins, but I'd like to know why we need them before I cast my !vote. Wikipedia's ways of working evolved in an environment where admin bandwidth was a scarce resource: our ecosystem might change unpredictably if faced with an oversupply of admins. - Pointillist (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point Pointillist. I believe that since an increasing of the number of administrators wouldn't necessarily hurt the project, there is no harm in having more administrators. I think the only possible harm is that people might be discouraged by the criticism at RFA's or the fact that people think that administrators might abuse the tools. The addition of administrators can also be beneficial because people will be able to go to more people, as older ones leave or lose their privileges. In the end, there is no known harm to having a good number of administrators that we know of. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's timing, not numbers. Since I'm not in the know on numbers, it is encouraging to know backlogs are lower. Often, requests are pounced on faster than you can start up more coffee. Then there are times with bad, bad colors and symbols in Huggle queued together. No one is at fault for any of this. Wikipedia is a volunteer service. Off-peak hours just have a more limited possible "staff", but volume is subject to most variation. Slower responses forms as well sometimes, etc., on top of the RCP. Again, it's no one's fault. Concerns to harassment, inappropriate content added, or vandalism slipping through, of course.

Non-admin actions at incident forums is limited short of submitting more reports, but we can try stop-gap discussion advice and try contacting the involved parties. Overall, it's a stress I'm sure no one likes, especially the "night regulars" I see doing a lot of the admin activities at odd hours. They are the people you should want comments from on this. Do we have any graphs of edits/hour to compare to admin actions/hour? Even if results are confidential, a trend would be nice to know. Lower ratio would imply more admin stress and less time for other things they might enjoy. It'd help all patrols and Huggle users who have more flexible schedules a lot to know the times that are most problematic so we can can best offer assistance :) ...Bot-automated {{wdefcon}} status changes for same purpose perhaps? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing standards

Looking over some of the older RfA's, say two or three years ago, it seems that some (I stress some and not all!) people were given sysop status simply because they asked for it and because they hadn't insulted Jimbo's mother. These days the sysop candidates have to jump through hoops whilst bending over backwards whilst at the same time holding a perfect, blemish-free, emotionless, record. In short: it was far easier to become a sysop a few years ago than it is now. Daily I see, and I won't mention any names, certain sysops speaking to editors in a way that would get me banned, or at least sink my chances of becoming a sysop for life. They are disrespectful, arrogant, incivil, and sometimes simply rude. But they get away with it because they all know each other and it's like an old boy network.

There needs to be some common ground, some equality of standard. One proposal would be that all sysops should be subject to recall. (If you're thinking about Arbcom then hold on; the old boy network often stops it getting that far!) Another would be that sysop status be granted for a fixed term, say 18 months. (Fixed terms of office work for prime ministers and presidents, for members of parliament and governors, for university departmental heads; in fact the only people that don't seem to use this system are monarchs!) I'm sure that there are many other ideas that would work. Although, I can already hear the protests "It would take too much time", "It couldn't be organised", etc... And I bet those that make these protests are those most worried about their positions post, dare I say it, revolution! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 03:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about recall, but I would love to see admins lose their bit after a fixed period of years, unless they need it by virtue of some other office. Whether this is 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years isn't as important that it be some finite time period. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Some other office? But admin tools are, most importantly, editing tools. The ability to edit protected templates. The ability to move a page over a non-trivial redirect. The ability to delete a category when you create one with a typo. The ability to clean up after a cut-and-paste move. Taking away editing tools that one takes for granted - that doesn't sound like a good strategy to retain editors. Guettarda (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed period adminship is a terrible idea. What happens after that? Those who lose the bit after their term have to re-apply through RFA? This creates way too much bureaucracy. Having to run once is enough hassle these days. Also, I can already see all those editors once "wronged" (read: correctly blocked or topic banned) by an admin running in to oppose. What a mess that would be. I like the system of monarchs you mention though. I really think my kids should inherit adminship.--Atlan (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

After the fixed term the sysops should be subject to review. If their work has been up to scratch, e.g. they are still active, they are still being civil, they are not abusing their position then they should be able to continue. This wouldn't create very much bureaucracy; we only have around 1,700 sysops. This user group must be subject to review and should be held accountable for their actions. I could name a few sysops that would be de-mopped if they were subject to a mandatory review, but they're not. Do you disagree that it was far easier to get sysop status several years ago? Do you disagree that some sysops are behaving in ways that would sink their RfA if they were to have to reapply? If not then you suggest a solution... ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lulz. Still upset? Awesome. Tan | 39 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC) ← A perfect illustration. Thanks Tan :o) ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sysop bits were basically handed out in the early years (I guess I didn't get the memo). I agree that some of those early admins, if not many, would fail an RFA were they to run today. It just doesn't bother me. If they were breaking the wiki through incompetence, I'm sure we'd know and they'd be quickly desysopped. I also agree with you that admins should be held accountable for their actions, but I feel they already are. Your proposal suggests someone will judge admins after some time to see if they did their job right. Who's going to be that judge? If it's the community, then it'll just be RFA all over again.--Atlan (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there'd be a way to sort it. Having another RfA isn't a good idea: RfAs seem to be a horrible experience (I've never had the masochistic urge to subject myself to one). Maybe select a jury randomly of, say, 20 users. It should include some Bureaucrats, some sysops, and some editors. I know that the devil is in the detail, but something needs to be done. The system isn't working at the moment. This might make more work, but it would strip out the dead wood. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There's always room for improvement, but the system is working just fine. You're looking for solutions where there are no problems.--Atlan (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as we all realize we're discussing this with a guy who acts when he has no idea what he's talking about. The especially choice parts of this were "I will be monitoring the vandalism page, and if you continue to conduct yourself in such a fashion then I will be forced to bring your behaviour to the attention of both the Administrators' noticeboard and ultimatly the Arbitration Committee" and "Threats? A simple promise." Threatening to take me to ArbCom because I removed an inactionable AIV report. If there is a more classic example of threatening (my bad: "promising") someone without knowing what the hell one is talking about, please let me know. I bring this up because it fits in nicely to this whole thread - "I don't like some admins (read: Tan et al); there needs to be a good way to get rid of them". Revolution? Not if it means handing over the bit to these characters. Tan | 39 22:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This was three or four months ago. I was very inexperienced at that time. Since then I've taken the time to learn procedures. I will leave any users to fish around the edit histories to see how both parties conducted themselves. You were a sysop and should have known better. I was an inexperienced editor that, although conducting himself wrongly, had a point. You probably don't realise this Tan, but you're illustrating my point perfectly, and I thank you. I've asked you to leave it and move on, but you always seem to pop up and post the same tired old links. I didn't mention your name, or anybody else's. So why take this all so personally? Move on! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha, Lulz indeed! If you had a point at that time, it wasn't a very good one...--Atlan (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't brought this up in some time. However, as you are literally calling for a revolution, I felt it necessary to point out your complete lack of credibility. Tan | 39 22:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The complete lack of credibility that you perceive. I was inexperienced at that time. This thread was not, and is not, about you. (Although you are an example of what I speak about) The point is we were both dicks that day. I have apologised and asked for closure. You have not apologised and you don't seem to want closure. You have proven my point: you're a sysop and should not be conducting yourself in this way. If you have more to say then I would ask you to take it to my talk page. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How was Tan a dick that day? I'm sorry but I don't see it. Anyway, you say this topic is not about Tanthalas, but you are very much making it that way now. You seem to use him as an example for why this idea of fixed admin terms of yours is necessary. Please elaborate how Tan illustrates your point so well.--Atlan (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For a start, he's commenting on contributors and not content. If he wanted to get involved in the discussion then he could have discussed the points I had made. Instead he started to insult me: I have "...no idea what [I'm] talking about", he wanted to "point out [my] complete lack of credibility.". Instead of using facts and logic to dismiss my points he attacks me and tries some kind of slur campaign. This thread wasn't about Tan, but he's made it all about him: "...some admins (read: Tan et al)...". ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If I interpret Tan's comments correctly, he assumes you've started this thread, partly or in whole, because of the incident he linked to. He finds that you lack credibility because of it (if that is indeed the basis of this thread). I can't say I blame him and there's nothing wrong with adding that to the discussion.--Atlan (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that would be an incorrect assumption. If I had started this thread because of that incident then why didn't I make this post three or four months ago? There might not be anything wrong with adding a link, but there is something wrong with adding personal insults. Just read what was written above: the tone was childish and spiteful. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How would admins who don't want to be subjected to fixed time monarchists? Put fixed rates on adminship isn't a good idea. Admins are people who are trusted to easily handle tasks you wouldn't want to give to a 14-year old kid who writes, "BOB IS STUPID" on articles. They are in no way rulers.Abce2|If you would like to make a call.. 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) Tanthalas practices the kind of in-your-face honesty, that some consider insulting. I don't think it's meant that way. More on-topic: I'm still not convinced, and I doubt I will be, absent any really good arguments.--Atlan (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Then we shall have to agree to disagree. I see that you also prefer the "in-your-face honesty" which most would consider blatant incivility^[1]; so I do understand why you hold the point of view that you seem to do.~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do on occasion. I'm sure you can see the context in which that comment was written though, and how it is completely different from the normal discussion we are having.--Atlan (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's what Tanthalas bordered on getting into which is exactly what non-admins fear getting smacked by since normal user-to-user conduct is meaningless, pretty much. How much would an admin put up out of the following, each of these filed against you separately at different dispute boards in one evening: 1)Reverted their extremely inappropriate edit with warning non-vandal level2 sent. Vandalism: removing their work without asking or talk page. 2) Same article, +5min: Revert-Revert. Bullying: for repeatedly changing their work. 3) Revert-Revert. 3RR: User has no idea what it actually means and reports after I go 3 and say in edit summary I'm leaving ---Edit warring warning sent to them & automatic talk page sent. Harassment & Hounding: Vandalizing their talk page. --Your talk 4) Massive vandalism after I start removing constant threats and random warning templates. Disruptive editing: Removing their warnings. Send personalized "please" warning asking to stop or I'd report, etc. 5) Bullying: Threatening them. Heads to WQA next. I reply to another user on talk, it's edited out, I revert, and 6) Disruptive editing, reverting their chat messages. Request 15min full protect on talk page for a pause at least. 7) ANI: My insinuating they were abusive asking an admin to protect me from them. --At ANI. User edits or blanks most of my posts ("liar"), and even some of other users. Any new comment get hounded on and edited away slowly.

...They finally get a 24hr block, but from a 3RR violation on the original page since they had once earlier that day I guess. Fix up the ANI... leave it there... return next day, it's marked "Resolved: Content Dispute" ...Die for me, please. Not a single post in words. I'm furious, but it's not worth pointing out to them that there was never any content and I was beaten up for 3 hours straight over 1 quazi-vandalism revert, because the admin would bite and block me for questioning their ability to research a dispute despite obviously not being able to, especially since I spent an extra hour putting up over 20 diffs to the most blatant stuff. Those are all on my record and will hound me at XfAs until the end of time. Other user? A level 4 civility warning, and WQA asks them to stop forum shopping. I'd have been done after any single one of those things if it were an admin or even if it were the admin stalking me. It's known to happen. I can't even leave for the night or I'll get massive blocks since I'm up on 5 dispute boards and need to reply on all of them. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You certainly are verbose Datheisen, I'll give you that. I have no idea what you're going on about though.--Atlan (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

True on both ends, and my apologies. As for why, I'll leave it at "it's complicated", but I know of a few admins that have the same underlying issue that can lead to it. I'm just not adjusted yet, and why I stay at XfDs more. My few attempts at nearly-just-diffs have filed miserably, ha. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, note that back in the day, we needed people to help police the emerging project. This in addition to lower standards helped to cause people to be admitted in higher numbers. Of course we did this before we figured out there some people really weren't all that compatible with administratorship. In the end though, it could be because we are promoting better administrators, although in some ways I believe that this is also discouraging potential administrators. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

More graphs!

Red is the month's ratio, green is the average of all ratios for the year.

Yes, it's another graph. This one is kind of hard to explain, so I'll do my best. It is graphing the percentage of RfAs in a month that have passed. I looked at every single month from Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological), got the number of unsuccessful and successful RfAs, and added them together. I then took the number of successful, and divided it by the total number of RfAs, getting the percentage. On the graph, the red line is each month's percentage. The green line is the average of all percentages in a year, just to make it a little easier to interpret.

This graph is showing an interesting concept. Recently, a lot of numbers have been thrown around. "We've lost X many admins! we had X number of RfAs this month and X this month!" But does that mean anything? Personally, I think that saying RfA is dying because we have fewer RfAs is logically flawed. Yes, we have had less RfAs recently, but that doesn't mean that the process is broken. The rate of successful/total has been fairly steady since 2006. Before then, the standards were lower and people were passed easier.

As was said a few days ago, all the self-pitying threads are starting to do more harm then help. I do think this graph shows a few of the flaws in many of those arguments.

Thoughts? Comments? (X! · talk)  · @285  ·  05:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What it shows is that up to the start of this year, 40% of RFAs were successful. From January 35% have been successful. Someone else can do the math to see if that is statistically significant. This indicates that the problem is not that you are getting vastly more bad candidates. The other version of the graph in commons indicates that you are getting significantly less candidates than before. Perhaps you need to conduct a survey (anonymous of course) , find out why people don't run for admin. There's nothing like data. Does Media wiki come with survey tools - if not, I can suggest some good ones. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what the graph would look like if NOTNOW-type applications were excluded from the data set... In other words, what's the trend in success percentage for reasonably credible candidates? --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, as a mathematician, I don't think that it's possible to have enough graphs ;o) To answer the question: People have lost faith! You put forward an RfA, people are mean to you, people pick apart your every action and every word. You are publicly examined, rated, and criticised. And for what? It's not like you're asking to be left in charge of the nuclear football. The requirements for a successful RfA have totally exceeded necessary levels. At the end of the day, if you're successful, you get some extra tools. But to get these extra tools you have to be a saint, a master editor, a diplomat, and a politician. Many people have come to the conclusion that it's just not worth the bloody hassle! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The successful/unsuccessful ratio, while useful, should be not be analyzed in isolation. (If it really were the one-and-only important indicator, it's interesting that this hasn't been noticed before.) In particular, if good editors are deciding not to be candidates, and so total candidates are decreasing, that's a problem; the graph doesn't say anything about whether this is happening. (It's a problem because the more admins we have, the less stress for each, and the more time each has to do things purely for enjoyment, not duty - which increases the likelihood of their staying around.) And if the number of active admins is decreasing - something that another analysis earlier this year showed was definitely the continuing trend - then a large number of people, myself included, think that there certainly is a problem, for the reasons I mentioned. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just saying, I see a lot of admins being accused of unreasonable stuff they never did, but have managed to get there words twisted compared to when I first edited. Not just at ANI, even on the only talk page day after day. That's alot of stress.Abce2|If you would like to make a call.. 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit filters on admin actions

A year or so ago we had an administrator from another wiki ask for administratorship for a very specialized task. He got the bit but not without a lot of discussion. Some of the discussion was along the lines of "I would be more supportive if we could enforce your promise in software."

Likewise, we occasionally get noms from people who are generally trustworthy and could clearly use the tools correctly in some areas but tend to make deletion-related judgment calls that are too far away from historical consensus for comfort. Some of these editors have promised to be careful when deleting or not delete. Some have passed, some have not.

For de-adminship, ARBCOM sometimes strips the bit, but they could just as easily impose administrator restrictions, like "don't use the tools on these topics" or "don't block these editors." A future community de-adminship process may produce similar less-than-desysopping outcomes if it had the authority to do so and a means to enforce it.

Wikipedia:Edit filter looks like it can be used to restrict the activities of administrators, e.g. allow an administrator to only make a certain number of blocks or deletes a day, not allow him to block or delete certain editors or pages, etc., or even pop up "are you sure"-type warning messages.

While there is a clear benefit to having less-than-full admins as outlined above, it isn't free. The costs include a more complex RFA process and the need for a procedure to add or remove such restrictions. I don't think automated software enforcement of promises made during RFA or conditions imposed by ARBCOM or the community is worth the added overhead right now, but that could change in 2010 or later.

For now, I recommend we use this, but only in limited circumstances:

• As a means for something less than de-sysoping, for admins who demonstrate that they shouldn't take particular actions. This will typically be at an ARBCOM level and will be nothing more than a tool for ARBCOM enforcement. However, it might be useful in the "community desysopping" process being discussed elsewhere. This is outside the scope of RFA but presented here because of the audience.

• For the very exceptional cases where an administrator from another project needs to use the tool for something that affects both projects. This will be rare, and it will serve as nothing more than software enforcement to a pledge made up-front by the nominee as part of the nomination. Its purpose here is to reduce the drama of such RFAs. Had this been available at the time of the RFA of the admin from another wiki above, I think both the nominator and nominee would've jumped on it, and the RFA would've probably closed with little opposition. The question today is whether this it is a good idea to allow this for exceptional cases, whether its a bad idea, or whether we should table the discussion until the need arises. Its use would boil down to: Did the administrator make a single mistake or do something not likely to be repeated, or does he have a blind spot in a particular area where software enforcement or a software-triggered warning message is appropriate?

I also recommend we keep this technology in mind so as the needs of the wiki change, we have the flexibility to adapt.

Your thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, every edit filter runs on every edit made by every editor. It would seem strange to create an edit filter that's only going to be restricted to one person and thus only trigger on <<<1% of all edits. That said, such filters do exist, such as Special:AbuseFilter/129, which I believe was created solely to keep track of Bambifan. So there are certainly single persons "important" enough to demand the creation of their own edit filter. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just off-the-cuff... if we don't trust the admin to voluntary respect the imposed restriction or pledge, what's stopping them from editing it out of the filter? –xeno^talk 16:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Filters on trusted people aren't to protect against intentional acts, they are to protect someone from making a mistake or acting rashly. A good admin with a history of making good deletions when he's doing them one at a time but poor ones after his 5th in an hour would be a good candidate for a throttling filter, for example. Along these lines, administrators who are good with filters may offer to make filters for other admins or editors based on a courtesy request, much like the wiki-break enforcer tools are triggered on courtesy requests. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in this case we need to be mindful of Soap's highlighting of the condition limit. If we extend it to log actions as well as edits then I think it will bring the wiki to its knees. –xeno^talk 18:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as a viable solution. If we don't trust them enough, we shouldn't be granting them the bit. In addition, it would be too easy a step from here to arbitrary limits on adminship being imposed regularly. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe (and I just tested with protect, but not with everything) that the abusefilter can, at the moment, only monitor edits, moves, or deletions. In the case of deletions, you can not access any of the page info (except things like the title). So, while it is certainly possible to modify the abusefilter to handle all sorts of admin actions, someone will have to code it. I agree with the trust argument above: don't give people any rights unless you trust them to do what they say. But from a technical point of view, it is not currently possible to create fancy admin filters to monitor anything but deletions, and an admin could change any filter they wanted anyway (because the filters can't block users from promoting themselves to AFE). Prodego ^talk 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

admin intervention

I have noticed that most of the unsuccessful RFA'S are being closed by non-admin's i.e. rollbackers, it would be better if an admin would look at RFA'S before they get closed as so to review the candidates eligibility for adminship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul2387 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW RFAs? These can be closed by anyone who has experience with the RFA process, not just admins... –xeno^talk 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, crats are supposed to close RFDs that don't qualify for an early fail e.g. SNOW or NOTNOW. As xeno said, anyone who knows what they are doing can invoke the mercy rule. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

'Crats almost always do close RfAs that don't qualify for an early closure...the only exception is when an RfA candidate withdraws; in that case, it may simply be closed by any editor in good standing. For example, the Salavat, Jeffrey Mall, and Sebwite RfAs from last month were all unsuccessful, but they were closed by bureaucrats after they ran for a week, as they should have been. The only non-WP:SNOW/WP:NOTNOW RfA closure that was closed as unsuccessful by a non-'crat last month was RadioFan's, closed by admin SoWhy, and that was acceptable because RadioFan had withdrawn. Looking over the last several WP:SNOW/WP:NOTNOW RfA closures, only one actually was closed by a non-admin (Triplestop, a rollbacker) – Paul2387's RfA. Paul2387 is the one asking the question here...just for the record. And yeah, there's nothing wrong with a non-admin closing an RfA early per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Layout for questions

Am I the only one who finds the way we're formatting the questions weird? This is the only area where we use the format "; ..." for a headline. And what's the use of these headlines anyway? Why bundle questions by the person who asked them? The important thing is not who asked them, but what they're about. That information is currently hidden in the question text.

Speaking of the question text, it is also awkward that it has to be indented. This text is similar in function to the beginning of a conversation, which is always unindented.

So, why can't we just have a simple structure like this:

==Questions ==
=== Q1: Color ===
What's your favorite color? ~~~~
: Red. ~~~~
=== Q2: ... ===

— Sebastian 18:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That would bloat the TOC needlessly... –xeno^talk 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How are an extra ten TOC lines a problem on a page that already has hundreds of lines of text? The TOC should be commensurate with the text, and it's common in articles to have sections that are no longer than the questions here. Questions are referred to fairly often, as well they should, because we want candidates to put an effort into answering them. So it would certainly be a benefit if they were easier to find. — Sebastian 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I also think that people would get ticked off at that because it would mess with "the system". Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that people don't like change, or "don't fix it if it ain't broke"? That is understandable. But I don't see how this change could mess up anything. — Sebastian 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem with bloat of the question section in RFA, making each question a subheading could make this worse by adding emphasis. As for signing questions, they are part of the dialogue in RFA and I for one like to know who has asked what. ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If we have a problem with bloat, then it's that of the RfA as a whole. People naturally have questions and concerns, and if they don't put them into the questions section, they put them into the vote sections. I don't see how the latter is preferable to the former. Indeed, we could even simplify matters and remove a lot of redundancy if candidates didn't have to reply to the same kind of question in so many different places. — Sebastian 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Am I the only one who finds the way we're formatting the questions weird?" Apparently so. I don't find it weird at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. If I'm really the only one, then there's no point in dragging this on. — Sebastian 16:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)